For WarEagleNR88, but I'm curious about other's experiences as well, as I realize this is just my experience. I think everyone with a sump agrees that constant water level in the main/display, hiding stuff, easy water changes, and larger volume for easier dosing rule, so focussing on different configurations.
Wet/Dry - IMO very unnecessary with high light, as plants are excellent biofilters and oxygen is a product of photosynthesis. Sealing the wet/dry to limit gassed off CO2 limits oxygenation, and there is no applied difference from submerged biomedia. Submerging the drain line further limits CO2 gas off. (I did reach 25ppm CO2 by adding more DIY canisters while running wet/dry, but had better plant health and less algae after increasing CO2 and using no biomedia, and now use the philosophy in all my planted tanks.) Here is a discussion on AA about wet/dry and CO2.
A low or med light tank with wet/dry to maintain atmospheric CO2 could be interesting. Here is a thread on CO2 in non-injected tanks.
Fuge / Planted sump - I run reverse photoperiods between the main and sump, and the benefits are dosing for one system, closer to stable pH, and presumably closer to stable O2 and CO2. There is competition between tanks, as reducing the plant mass in the planted sump increases plant growth in the main. More experienced aquarists have told me it must be a PITA to dose such a set-up, but with EI I don't think it makes a difference, and since I learn with this set-up I don't know any better.
I figure since dosing is increased to make up for dilution sumps may as well be planted. Running a planted sump and main on the same lighting schedule should have the benefits of a large tank or two connected tanks.
Dosing - I dry dose most nutrients into the sump knowing that all nutrients will be diluted by the time it reaches the main. I dose trace into the main as its said some nutrients are immobile, but I see no trace deficiency in the planted sump. I breed shrimp in the sump and have no issues with this method.
CO2 injection - I went from an adapted powerhead reactor (~30" of pipe, integrated to Martin Thoene's river tank concept) to injecting CO2 immediately after the return pump while using the return piping as the reactor, and derive the same CO2 level. Its better to integrate as many features as possible -- I like stealth, am cheap, and with ~100% diffusion method should not matter -- but of course sticking some reactor in the sump works too.
Surface skimmers - I drilled my main but originally used an elbow with slits to skim the surface, mimicking overflow designs. The noise wasn't worth it for me, and potentially it could increase gassed off CO2, but it worked fine.
Durso standpipe - Highly recommended as it not only reduces noise but limits surface turbulation in the main -- I move >200gph through 8g while maintaining >40ppm CO2. Durso can be aggravating to fix when there's a flushing effect, however. www.dursostandpipes.com
Prefilter on drain - Pantyhose clogs too easily, sponges are higher maintenance than they need to be, and window screen is no maintenance and passes all particulates from the main to the sump... window screen rules.
Wet/Dry - IMO very unnecessary with high light, as plants are excellent biofilters and oxygen is a product of photosynthesis. Sealing the wet/dry to limit gassed off CO2 limits oxygenation, and there is no applied difference from submerged biomedia. Submerging the drain line further limits CO2 gas off. (I did reach 25ppm CO2 by adding more DIY canisters while running wet/dry, but had better plant health and less algae after increasing CO2 and using no biomedia, and now use the philosophy in all my planted tanks.) Here is a discussion on AA about wet/dry and CO2.
A low or med light tank with wet/dry to maintain atmospheric CO2 could be interesting. Here is a thread on CO2 in non-injected tanks.
Fuge / Planted sump - I run reverse photoperiods between the main and sump, and the benefits are dosing for one system, closer to stable pH, and presumably closer to stable O2 and CO2. There is competition between tanks, as reducing the plant mass in the planted sump increases plant growth in the main. More experienced aquarists have told me it must be a PITA to dose such a set-up, but with EI I don't think it makes a difference, and since I learn with this set-up I don't know any better.
I figure since dosing is increased to make up for dilution sumps may as well be planted. Running a planted sump and main on the same lighting schedule should have the benefits of a large tank or two connected tanks. Dosing - I dry dose most nutrients into the sump knowing that all nutrients will be diluted by the time it reaches the main. I dose trace into the main as its said some nutrients are immobile, but I see no trace deficiency in the planted sump. I breed shrimp in the sump and have no issues with this method.
CO2 injection - I went from an adapted powerhead reactor (~30" of pipe, integrated to Martin Thoene's river tank concept) to injecting CO2 immediately after the return pump while using the return piping as the reactor, and derive the same CO2 level. Its better to integrate as many features as possible -- I like stealth, am cheap, and with ~100% diffusion method should not matter -- but of course sticking some reactor in the sump works too.
Surface skimmers - I drilled my main but originally used an elbow with slits to skim the surface, mimicking overflow designs. The noise wasn't worth it for me, and potentially it could increase gassed off CO2, but it worked fine.
Durso standpipe - Highly recommended as it not only reduces noise but limits surface turbulation in the main -- I move >200gph through 8g while maintaining >40ppm CO2. Durso can be aggravating to fix when there's a flushing effect, however. www.dursostandpipes.com
Prefilter on drain - Pantyhose clogs too easily, sponges are higher maintenance than they need to be, and window screen is no maintenance and passes all particulates from the main to the sump... window screen rules.
